9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period 01.07.2008 to 30.09.2008 under Notification 41/2007-ST has been rejected. The initial claim was for Rs. 5,93,321/- against which the show cause notice was issued proposing rejection of an amount of Rs. 1,72,514/-. In his order dt. 09.04.2009, the Asst. Commissioner sanctioned the refund of Rs. 4,33,555/- and rejected the refund of Rs. 1,59,766/-. The matter was taken up for revision by the Commissioner. In the revision proceedings, the Commissioner has rejected the refund of Rs. 2,83,124/- pertaining to debit note/expense voucher and Terminal Handling charges holding them to be wrongly sanctioned by the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dt. 09.04.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Tribunal. 3. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments are debit notes). On the issue of Terminal Handling charges, the Ld. Advocate relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Nahar Fibres Vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2016 (46) S.T.R. 542 (Tri.-Del.). 4. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Debit Note cannot be equated with invoice and Rule 4A and the Board Circular only speak of the invoice/challan/bills. He reiterated the findings of the Commissioner in this regard. He also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore- 2010 (20) S.T.R. 609 (Tri. Del.). On the second issue, the Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings of the Commissioner in his revision order. 5. Heard both the parties and examined the record. 6. There are two issues ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per Rule, 4A is contained in the debit notes. Hence, the objection raised by the Commissioner is unsustainable and the issue is held in favour of the appellants. The case law of Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore (supra) relied upon by the Ld. A.R. is not applicable for two reasons. Firstly, it pertains to Cenvat Credit of Service Tax and not in the context of refund under Notification No. 41/2007 and secondly, this decision is of a Single Member whereas the decision of M/s Shivam Exports & Others (supra), which is directly in the context of Notification No.41/2007-ST, has been delivered by a Division Bench. Issue (ii) Whether refund of Terminal Handling charges paid by the appellants in terms of Notification No.41/2007-ST pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act, subject to the conditions set out in the table. Sl. No. 2 of the table specifies the service specified in Section 65(105)(zn), namely any service provided or to be provided to any person by any other person in relation to port services in a port, in any manner. Port service is defined in Section 65(82) as meaning any service rendered within a port or other port in any manner. 6. On a true and fair construction of the relevant entry at Sl. No. 2 of the table under Exemption Notification No.41/2007-S.T., the inference is compelling that any service provided in relation to port services in a port, in any manner to an exporter and where such service is used for export is exempted from whole of the Service Tax leviable under Section 66 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
